Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T03:21:20.676Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Outcome reporting bias in clinical trials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 April 2011

Eleonora Esposito ,
Andrea Cipriani  and
Corrado Barbui
Eleonora Esposito*
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine and public Health, Section of Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology, University of Verona, Verona (Italy)
Andrea Cipriani
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine and public Health, Section of Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology, University of Verona, Verona (Italy)
Corrado Barbui
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine and public Health, Section of Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology, University of Verona, Verona (Italy)
*
Address for correspondence: Department of Medicine and Public Health, Section of Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology, University of Verona, Verona (Italy) Fax: +39-045-8027498 E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are designed and powered to measure one single outcome, called primary outcome (Sibbald & Roland, 1998; Barbui et al., 2007). The primary outcome is the pre-specified outcome of greatest clinical importance and is usually the one used in the sample size calculation (Accordini, 2007). In addition to the primary outcome, RCTs may have several other outcomes, called secondary outcomes. In contrast with the analysis of the primary outcome, the analysis of secondary outcomes and its interpretation may be complicated by at least two factors:

  1. 1) the trial may not have enough statistical power to detect differences (so it is possible to incur in a type II error, that is failing to see a difference that is present);

  2. 2) increasing the number of secondary outcomes generates the problem of multiplicity of analyses, that is the proliferation of possible comparisons in a trial (and increasing the number of comparisons increases the possibility to incur in a type I error, that is detecting significant differences by chance). For all these reasons, the results of the analysis of primary outcomes is considered less susceptible to bias than the analysis of secondary outcomes.

Keywords

clinical trialsoutcomesmethodsstatistics
Type
ABC of Methodology
Information
Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 17 - 18
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Accordini, S. (2007). An introduction to sample size calculations in clinical trials. Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale 16, 299–301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barbui, C., Veronese, A. & Cipriani, A. (2007). Explanatory and pragmatic trials. Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale 16, 124–125.Google Scholar
Chan, A.W., Hrobjartsson, A., Haahr, M.T., Gotzsche, P.C. & Altman, D.G. (2004). Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. Journal of American Medical Association 291, 2457–2465.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dwan, K., Altman, D.G., Arnaiz, J.A., Bloom, J., Chan, A.W., Cronin, E., Decullier, E., Easterbrook, P.J., Von, E.E., Gamble, C., Ghersi, D., Ioannidis, J.P., Simes, J. & Williamson, P.R. (2008). Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS ONE 3, e3081.Google Scholar
Sibbald, B. & Roland, M. (1998). Understanding controlled trials. Why are randomised controlled trials important? British Medical Journal 316, 201.Google Scholar